|
|
Post by famouswolf on Feb 2, 2013 1:01:27 GMT -6
Being a GM of different experience than AD&D, I find the reverse armor classes somewhat, no, very, inintuative and clumsy.
I was thinking of, if I actually run this, switching the ACs and make them ascending. Just in case I am looking at this wrong, does 11 to 29 sound about right? If someone could point out any flaws with this, I would appreciate it. If I have a handle on this, it would be a matter of adding a number to the existing AC to equal twenty and good to go, right? So an AC of 9=11, 5=15, -2=22, etc.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Feb 2, 2013 6:03:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on Feb 2, 2013 6:18:13 GMT -6
Being a GM of different experience than AD&D, I find the reverse armor classes somewhat, no, very, inintuative and clumsy. I was thinking of, if I actually run this, switching the ACs and make them ascending. Just in case I am looking at this wrong, does 11 to 29 sound about right? If someone could point out any flaws with this, I would appreciate it. If I have a handle on this, it would be a matter of adding a number to the existing AC to equal twenty and good to go, right? So an AC of 9=11, 5=15, -2=22, etc.? Yes you could easily do FA (of attacker)+ modifiers + d20 to equal or exceed 20 - AC (of defender) |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Feb 3, 2013 12:51:23 GMT -6
Being a GM of different experience than AD&D, I find the reverse armor classes somewhat, no, very, inintuative and clumsy. I've heard this complaint a few times, and I have to admit I really don't understand it. You cross-index the fighting ability of the attacker and the AC of the defender on a chart to get the hit number. There's not even any math involved. Whether the numbers run one way or the other is entirely irrelevant. In fact, the armor classes need not even be numbers; they could be letters, punctuation marks, or even abstract symbols and the chart would still work exactly the same way. It's cut and dried - you look it up on a chart - so I honestly don't see where "intuitiveness" comes into it. (I'm not being facetious; I sincerely don't understand this complaint.)  I was thinking of, if I actually run this, switching the ACs and make them ascending. Just in case I am looking at this wrong, does 11 to 29 sound about right? If someone could point out any flaws with this, I would appreciate it. That being said, if you feel more comfortable with ascending armor classes then you should certainly use them instead. I am of the personal opinion that mechanics are the least important aspect of an RPG experience (unless the mechanics become so intrusive that they overpower the roleplaying aspect), and as I said the direction the AC numbers run is completely irrelevant anyway. There is a school of thought among some "old school" players that ascending AC is bad because it can lead to bonus inflation; in other words, the best descending AC possible is -9 or -10 depending on the rules set, but there is no set limit to ascending AC, which supposedly could encourage munchkin power gaming and one-upmanship. I myself don't agree with this. I feel it's simply a case of "old school" players trying to rationalize their personal preference for descending AC (just as complaints of "counter-intuitiveness" regarding descending AC strike me as a case of non-"old school" gamers trying to rationalize their personal preference). Of all the many, many (many, many, many, many) horrible changes that third edition made to D&D, ascending AC was probably the least offensive, in my opinion. Use it in good health.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 13:51:26 GMT -6
It isn't easy to buy the argument that "lower is better" is a confusing concept in a world that understands that a 1st Place finish is far preferable to a 3rd Place showing.
That said, is AAC is preferable to DAC, then by all means use that. Your game, your way!
|
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Feb 3, 2013 14:01:10 GMT -6
I don't like having to refer to charts during play, in ANY game.
That said (pure personal preference, yes) I referred to 'different experience'. I am actually one of the first generation of rpgers, 1977 to be exact. Back in college we first tried the blue book D&D and frankly hated the mechanics-because it was, you guessed it, very counter intuitive to us, in spades. We loved the idea of D&D and picked up TFT and fused it with the blue book, and a couple of years later moved over to CoC and Stormbringer. So I came to prefer games without charts even though there have been some good ones based on charts. Remember TSR's Conan, with the color coded chart?
At any rate, I find that agreeable, easy to use mechanics enhance the experience. Constantly referencing a chart in combat is a major distraction to me.
It's a wonder that I am considering running this game as it is, my first impulse was to convert it to Stormbringer 1st edition.
It's a matter of what one is comfortable with, only. I have heard people who like class/level/charted games complain about the separate armor rolls in Stormbringer, for instance, even though I cannot understand why it's an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Feb 3, 2013 14:03:16 GMT -6
Well, Cameron, a first place finish usually has the highest score, now doesn't it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 14:04:37 GMT -6
Well, Cameron, a first place finish usually has the highest score, now doesn't it. I meant no offense. And ... even though I don't buy the argument doesn't mean it still isn't a good reason to change it in one's home campaign. Peace, fellow gamer. |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Feb 3, 2013 15:12:28 GMT -6
Well, Cameron, a first place finish usually has the highest score, now doesn't it. Or the lowest time.  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 3, 2013 16:28:22 GMT -6
FWIW -- my own anecdotal experience... I started my D&D career using descending AC, and switched to ascending AC during the 3E years. For a long time I was convinced that ascending AC was a "better" mechanic, and over the years considerable energy was spent determining "how high could you go"? To that particular end the Dungeons & Dragons Online experience (a 3E based game) demonstrated that PCs could regularly achieve ascending ACs north of 60, and even north of 70. By the time 4E came about, I was weary of the "numbers game" and went back to OD&D (and descending AC). I found the switch hugely refreshing. So having used both methods for a number of years, I'm now convinced that descending AC is the better design. The main reasons I now prefer it are: . Compatibility with all the early D&D material. . Single digit numbers are easier. . AC 0 is a natural "line in the sand". . Negative ACs are quite obviously "different" to positive ACs. As for determining hits and misses, the "target 20" method is a natural fit with descending ACs and mitigates any need to refer to charts during play. That's not to say descending AC is for everyone; merely that it's my own preference. Your mileage may vary |
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Feb 3, 2013 17:46:48 GMT -6
Very true.
The very best combat system I ever had the pleasure to run was Elric!, with no upper limit to the skill percentages. Indeed, the rules encouraged players to have at least one combat skill of 100% or better.
But, I'm not saying one or the other is superior, just that I have a preference and asked if anyone could see a problem mechanics-wise with what I have in mind, as described in my first post. I really don't care one way or the other what someone elses preference is, and would play a game using those preferences, but not run a chart driven game with ascending ac myself.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251 
|
Post by 18 Spears on Feb 3, 2013 17:52:44 GMT -6
But, I'm not saying one or the other is superior ... (sic) and clumsy.Sure you weren't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 18:02:56 GMT -6
First FamousWolf and now you. Look, some of you are taking this way too personally. It's a game, for crying out loud. If you don't like something about it change it to something you do like or play another that game suits you better.  |
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Feb 3, 2013 20:23:18 GMT -6
That's right, Mr. Spears.
That's MY PREFERENCE. OK?
|
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Feb 3, 2013 20:34:26 GMT -6
...and Mr. DuBeers, no offense taken.
One must, to some extent, look at things from different viewpoints. Or not, of course.
Some like beer, some like wine, some like neither one. The main thing here is simply whether or not one wants to use a chart. I find descending AC does not make sense in play, but that is just me. Otherwise I was just looking for input as to whether my patch had a hidden problem I was overlooking, from people I considered peers.
Not whether or not it would be superior to another method.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 20:40:26 GMT -6
...and Mr. DuBeers, no offense taken. I'm relieved to hear that. Respectfully, I neither said nor implied that. Neither did I imply that I thought you said that. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Feb 3, 2013 20:55:47 GMT -6
That's the other way around.
Too sticky around here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 21:00:08 GMT -6
I'm sorry you feel that way, truly. If you change your mind, come on back around. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Feb 3, 2013 21:24:50 GMT -6
Fellows,
I do encourage the referee of any AS&SH to modify as suits his or her tastes. This is fine and in the spirit of the game. I personally prefer AC as presented, but if I were to recommend an ascending system, I would point to Matt Finch's Swords & Wizardry, particularly the "White Box" edition as developed by Marv, the founder of these boards. Happy gaming!
Cheers,
Jeff T.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 22:05:33 GMT -6
I do encourage the referee of any AS&SH to modify as suits his or her tastes. This is fine and in the spirit of the game. I personally prefer AC as presented, but if I were to recommend an ascending system, I would point to Matt Finch's Swords & Wizardry, particularly the "White Box" edition as developed by Marv, the founder of these boards. Happy gaming. Well said, Ghul. Matt's system is an excellent example of ascending AC (AAC) put to good use. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 3, 2013 22:11:17 GMT -6
As for determining hits and misses, the "target 20" method is a natural fit with descending ACs and mitigates any need to refer to charts during play. The Target 20 method is my favorite way to do things.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 22:14:39 GMT -6
You know, yesterday I had a long post typed about AAC using Matt's S&W system and Target-20. Amusingly enough, I didn't post it because I thought it would ruffle feathers! (chuckle) That didn't work out so great for me, did it?
At any rate, both systems really ease "to hit" calculations and that is a good thing for those who don't like using the standard matrices from M&M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 22:16:46 GMT -6
Oh, and btw . . . somebody made a comment about Delta's T20 document and not being able to find it. Here is a link to the PDF. I'm assuming since he made it available for download from his site it is okay to distribute it. Delta's Target-20: www.dropbox.com/s/awz93czpeku6khr/Target20.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on Feb 3, 2013 22:35:38 GMT -6
Oh, and btw . . . somebody made a comment about Delta's T20 document and not being able to find it. Here is a link to the PDF. I'm assuming since he made it available for download from his site it is okay to distribute it. Delta's Target-20: www.dropbox.com/s/awz93czpeku6khr/Target20.pdfNeat. Thanks for the link! Morgan |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Feb 4, 2013 12:44:37 GMT -6
I started my D&D career using descending AC, and switched to ascending AC during the 3E years. For a long time I was convinced that ascending AC was a "better" mechanic, and over the years considerable energy was spent determining "how high could you go"? To that particular end the Dungeons & Dragons Online experience (a 3E based game) demonstrated that PCs could regularly achieve ascending ACs north of 60, and even north of 70. I may have to rethink my opinion about ascending AC not leading to munchkin powergaming.  Maybe it's because I started my gaming career with Avalon Hill wargames, but having to use a chart or two during play never really bothered me. My gaming sessions are usually no more than a third or a quarter combat, so it isn't like I have to consult them constantly. (When I was 18 I had the entirety of the hit and saving throw tables from the DMG memorized. No chance of managing that now...  ) |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 4, 2013 14:32:57 GMT -6
Of course for descending AC and no chart you can just use THAC0 (a 2e era acronym meaning "To Hit AC 0), which reproduces everything but the repeating 20s in the AD&D 1e DMG. THAC0 - AC = target on 1d20. It's subtraction in your head which is a block for some people but it's honestly pretty easy.
In practice during my 2e youth we did at some point try and get rid of THAC0 but I never bothered since it was annoying to convert everything. There was a system in Dragon magazine that flipped the numbers around to a roll-high and made it effectively the 3.x style system.
I always liked the benchmark AC 0 and the absolute limit of AC -10, saying effectively that there should be nothing beyond these points.
|
|
)